Republicans against Retirement? No seriously! Not a joke

[SouthoftheAndes]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/17/opinion/republicans-against-retirement.html?src=recg


Brilliant piece by Krugman.

Something strange is happening in the Republican primary — something strange, that is, besides the Trump phenomenon. For some reason, just about all the leading candidates other than The Donald have taken a deeply unpopular position, a known political loser, on a major domestic policy issue. And it’s interesting to ask why.

The issue in question is the future of Social Security, which turned 80 last week. The retirement program is, of course, both extremely popular and a long-term target of conservatives, who want to kill it precisely because its popularity helps legitimize government action in general. As the right-wing activist Stephen Moore (now chief economist of the Heritage Foundation) once declared, Social Security is “the soft underbelly of the welfare state”; “jab your spear through that” and you can undermine the whole thing.

It’s remarkable, then, that most of the Republicans who would be president seem to be lining up for another round of punishment. In particular, they’ve been declaring that the retirement age — which has already been pushed up from 65 to 66, and is scheduled to rise to 67 — should go up even further.

Thus, Jeb Bush says that the retirement age should be pushed back to “68 or 70”. Scott Walker has echoed that position. Marco Rubio wants both to raise the retirement age and to cut benefits. Rand Paul wants to raise the retirement age to 70 and means-test benefits. Ted Cruz wants to revive the Bush privatization plan.

For the record, these proposals would be really bad public policy — a harsh blow to Americans in the bottom half of the income distribution, who depend on Social Security, often have jobs that involve manual labor, and have not, in fact, seen a big rise in life expectancy. Meanwhile, the decline of private pensions has left working Americans more reliant on Social Security than ever.

And no, Social Security does not face a financial crisis; its long-term funding shortfall could easily be closed with modest increases in revenue.

 

[5H3RD0G]

Most people on average retire at around there 50's so that plan isn't very intelligent add to that companies are encouraged to either require people retire in their 50's or be forced out so they can't receive retirement. :icon_chee Next suggestion, every time I see a Republican plan it turns America into a dictatorship. First impossible requirements, dumb down the people by having expensive schooling, debt and wars. The only thing I would appreciate is their cooperation in order to make things more sensible rather than ridiculous. I won't say the Dems are better with there as many people as possible so we can win the vote and just incrementally improve and screw up again in a few years plan, it's slightly better but no good as well.

 

[LiveFreeorDie]

Social Security

 

[JDragon]

This is bullshit. The US is nowhere near the demographic catastrophe Europe is about to enounter (without immigration) - and even in Europe, at least in Germany where retirement age already was lifted to be 67 - the trend is in the other direction. Mainly because productivity increases can offset demographics.

 

[My Spot]

So wanting to raise the age limit = against retirement? Nice way to partisan hack it up with that title there.

 

[Bloodworth]

if a cop retires after 25 years, say he is 55, he can receive up to 3 figures a year and about half a million ever 5 years.....Now add up all the retired cops, its neglectful...thats a system dishing out more money then they will ever bring in...

 

[gigantalor]

Social Security

 

[gigantalor]

if a cop retires after 25 years, say he is 55, he can receive up to 3 figures a year and about half a million ever 5 years.....Now add up all the retired cops, its neglectful...thats a system dishing out more money then they will ever bring in...

3 figures? That's hundreds of dollars! :icon_lol:

Just kidding. Assuming you mean 6 figures? But yeah, I agree with you.

Don't most/all state and federal workers get pensions (as long as they stay for at least 10 or 20 years)?

 

[oldshadow]

3 figures? That's hundreds of dollars! :icon_lol:

Just kidding. Assuming you mean 6 figures? But yeah, I agree with you.

Don't most/all state and federal workers get pensions (as long as they stay for at least 10 or 20 years)?

I don't know what federal plan you are looking at but the one they are under now doesn't pay shit for 20 years even if you do meet then minimum age.

Even the old plan didn't pay enough to retire on until you got 36 years and you had to be 55.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Anyone else notice the number of attacks on Republican Candidates have skyrocketed in the last few days?

It can't possibly be because Hillary's numbers are tanking, and Democrats don't have any potential candidate that isn't a guaranteed loser.

No, that can't possibly be it. :icon_chee

 

[Jack V Savage]

Anyone else notice the number of attacks on Republican Candidates have skyrocketed in the last few days?

It can't possibly be because Hillary's numbers are tanking, and Democrats don't have any potential candidate that isn't a guaranteed loser.

No, that can't possibly be it. :icon_chee

What the heck are you talking about?

 

[ShoelessRye]

All these powder puff politicians who haven't worked a manual labor job since maybe their teens think it's a great idea to have all 65 yr olds have to work even longer. Just because they want to leave congress in a coffin doesn't mean everybody can and does feel that way about their job. It's one thing if you are a white collar pencil pusher (let alone a pampered as hell, "can't really call it work" Senator) your whole life versus a on-your-feet service industry or manual labor worker.

 

[LiveFreeorDie]

That actually sounds better than what I would have expected.

This is from a few years ago IIRC, the ridiculous part is it drops several years every year, the first time I noticed it its was 20 years or so more. By the time 2035 rolls around it would say 1988.

 

[SODACKER]

When social security began the average male didn't even make it to 65. Now most live to be 75. Why would retirement not adjust to this?

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

Anyone else notice the number of attacks on Republican Candidates have skyrocketed in the last few days?

It can't possibly be because Hillary's numbers are tanking, and Democrats don't have any potential candidate that isn't a guaranteed loser.

No, that can't possibly be it. :icon_chee

LMAO

Anyone notice the number of attacks on Republican Candidates has gone up right around the same time that Republican Candidates have started debating?

It can't possibly be because the more they say, the more idiotic, dangerous, and anti-American people realize they are.

No, that can't possibly be it. :icon_chee

 

[panamaican]

I like that there's no definition of what a "modest" increase in revenue actually means.

But as for the politics of it...who cares? If there's no public support then those guys won't get elected.

As an attack on the presence of big money donors driving political positions, I'd be interested in knowing the same info on the Democratic side of the aisle. If the source of the money is a problem then it's a 2 headed beast. If you try to convince me that there's only one head and it's the only bad one then I'm going to know that this is simple propaganda.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I like that there's no definition of what a "modest" increase in revenue actually means.

But as for the politics of it...who cares? If there's no public support then those guys won't get elected.

That's not true. People don't vote based on single issues. "Hmm. I don't agree with his Bart-killing policy. But I do approve of his Selma-killing policy."

As an attack on the presence of big money donors driving political positions, I'd be interested in knowing the same info on the Democratic side of the aisle. If the source of the money is a problem then it's a 2 headed beast. If you try to convince me that there's only one head and it's the only bad one then I'm going to know that this is simple propaganda.

So is it like some law of nature that any two parties have to have the same problems?

 

[James Keith]

Age discrimination is a massive problem among that age group and this stereotyping of elderly as people who need to step aside and become retirees is a huge part of it. Using the govt to encode the stereotype into law is probably one of the biggest causes.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This is from a few years ago IIRC, the ridiculous part is it drops several years every year, the first time I noticed it its was 20 years or so more. By the time 2035 rolls around it would say 1988.

That is not correct. Over the years, the projected date that the trust fund will run out has ranged from 2029 to 2042. The last few revisions to the projection have extended it, IIRC.

The projected 75-year shortfall amounts to less than 1% of GDP over that time. So it's well within the range of projection error, and if we raise taxes to cover the gap, even an extremely small increase would make an overshoot likely.

 

[panamaican]

That's not true. People don't vote based on single issues. "Hmm. I don't agree with his Bart-killing policy. But I do approve of his Selma-killing policy."

True but if the opinion on a single issue is negative enough it will tank their campaign.

So is it like some law of nature that any two parties have to have the same problems?

Of course not but we know that this is a problem that both parties have. It's not some random problem that's only been seen in one group and then that group's supporters try to deflect or minimize by saying "yeah but I bet the other guy does it too."

We know the other guy does it so I'd like information on both. 130 families is very precise. It's good information. But a comparison point is necessary if you're actually trying to inform. Do the Dem's come from 500 families? Which would underscore the concentration of wealth on the GOP side or do the Dem's come from 50 families would make us leery of both groups. Going super precise on only one side of an issue that we know impacts both parties strikes me as propaganda.